King Air down at Essendon?
I've driven past the accident site several times in the last few days.
Alongside the southern boundary fence between DFO and the freeway there are three substantial cellphone towers in a line, perhaps 100 feet apart.
Also the building has 14 verticle billboard towers along its length that extend above the height of the building.
As seen on the video there is an extraordinarily high wall, perhaps twice as high as the building itself, on the eastern side of the complex that serves no apparent use other than as a 100 meter long advertising billboard.
These towers and structures form a 400 (?) meter long line that creates a increase in obstacle height (perhaps 50ft) right on the edge of the high embankment, to the possible salvation onto the embankment and freeway below.
Even if they had cleared the building they probably would have hit one of these structures.
Are cellphone towers and gigantic billboards essential to a modern airport?
Should they be removed immediately?
Mickjoebill
Alongside the southern boundary fence between DFO and the freeway there are three substantial cellphone towers in a line, perhaps 100 feet apart.
Also the building has 14 verticle billboard towers along its length that extend above the height of the building.
As seen on the video there is an extraordinarily high wall, perhaps twice as high as the building itself, on the eastern side of the complex that serves no apparent use other than as a 100 meter long advertising billboard.
These towers and structures form a 400 (?) meter long line that creates a increase in obstacle height (perhaps 50ft) right on the edge of the high embankment, to the possible salvation onto the embankment and freeway below.
Even if they had cleared the building they probably would have hit one of these structures.
Are cellphone towers and gigantic billboards essential to a modern airport?
Should they be removed immediately?
Mickjoebill
I wonder if those of us engaged in the fascinating world of aviation have a view towards safety that is a little outside the mainstream, and too focused on the 10^-9 risk probability that rules our world.
As an example I'll use the obstacles that abut our roads, trees, ditches, power poles, head on collisions etc. We accept that people are going to collide with such obstacles in their vehicles and be injured, maimed or killed. Besides being enormously expensive to fix the deficiencies, we make no hue and cry as a community. Why is that? Because we willingly accept it as part of life? Because those events are ho, hum, every day news items? Everything we do entails risk, slipping over in the bath tub can involve a trip to the morgue.
Do aviation accidents attract the lamentations and attention because of their rarity? Calls to close the airport because of the risk comes to mind, whereas a B Double or car driving into someone's bedroom is just another all too common event we accept.
mickjoebill, I blame you for the train of thought.
As an example I'll use the obstacles that abut our roads, trees, ditches, power poles, head on collisions etc. We accept that people are going to collide with such obstacles in their vehicles and be injured, maimed or killed. Besides being enormously expensive to fix the deficiencies, we make no hue and cry as a community. Why is that? Because we willingly accept it as part of life? Because those events are ho, hum, every day news items? Everything we do entails risk, slipping over in the bath tub can involve a trip to the morgue.
Do aviation accidents attract the lamentations and attention because of their rarity? Calls to close the airport because of the risk comes to mind, whereas a B Double or car driving into someone's bedroom is just another all too common event we accept.
mickjoebill, I blame you for the train of thought.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if those of us engaged in the fascinating world of aviation have a view towards safety that is a little outside the mainstream, and too focused on the 10^-9 risk probability that rules our world.
As an example I'll use the obstacles that abut our roads, trees, ditches, power poles, head on collisions etc. We accept that people are going to collide with such obstacles in their vehicles and be injured, maimed or killed. Besides being enormously expensive to fix the deficiencies, we make no hue and cry as a community.
As an example I'll use the obstacles that abut our roads, trees, ditches, power poles, head on collisions etc. We accept that people are going to collide with such obstacles in their vehicles and be injured, maimed or killed. Besides being enormously expensive to fix the deficiencies, we make no hue and cry as a community.
Kaz
Do aviation accidents attract the lamentations and attention because of their rarity? Calls to close the airport because of the risk comes to mind, whereas a B Double or car driving into someone's bedroom is just another all too common event we accept.
Bradley Golding: Thank you! Great effort on that video.
Do we have confirmation that the undercarriage was ever retracted on this flight?
Based on the video are we thinking of he'd managed another 50 ft in altitude, it would have been put down on the Tulla freeway inbound? (Traffic aside)
Based on the video are we thinking of he'd managed another 50 ft in altitude, it would have been put down on the Tulla freeway inbound? (Traffic aside)
If the pilot neglects to select the correct switch & misses the appropriate annunciators prior to takeoff he could find himself low level OEI and 17 knots below his planned Vmca.
27/09,
Once again I'm not making any comment in relation to this accident.
But a general comment below.
The AFX annunciators in the 200 series King Air are green and illuminate when the system becomes armed (in basic terms- switch on and takeoff power set). They are located in the middle area of the cockpit below the main panel area housing the engine instruments, forward of the engine control quadrant (and also avionics dependant, some secondary indications possible on a glass MFD too).
Now, if a pilot was lax/distracted, or used to flying older/un-modified B200s where AFX isn't required and they didn't use it, then the lack of the green auto feather armed indication when they are now in a different aircraft (where AFX is actually now required) could quite easily be missed.
I'm taking a guess here and thinking that you are a licensed pilot. You've never seen people make "simple" mistakes that leave you shaking your head and wondering "how did they do/not do that?"
Once again I'm not making any comment in relation to this accident.
But a general comment below.
The AFX annunciators in the 200 series King Air are green and illuminate when the system becomes armed (in basic terms- switch on and takeoff power set). They are located in the middle area of the cockpit below the main panel area housing the engine instruments, forward of the engine control quadrant (and also avionics dependant, some secondary indications possible on a glass MFD too).
Now, if a pilot was lax/distracted, or used to flying older/un-modified B200s where AFX isn't required and they didn't use it, then the lack of the green auto feather armed indication when they are now in a different aircraft (where AFX is actually now required) could quite easily be missed.
I'm taking a guess here and thinking that you are a licensed pilot. You've never seen people make "simple" mistakes that leave you shaking your head and wondering "how did they do/not do that?"
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Add a few hundred people atomised in a heavy jet CFIT or a few hundred litres of burning Jet A1 in a shopping centre and people start to pay attention.
It's not about aviation, it's about the impact on our senses and sensibilities.
Moderator
I think it's directly related to the horror factor.
In the literature, this is characterised by "dread risk" (low control and significant consequences) versus "continuing risk" (the normal risks that we tolerate and manage on a routine basis).
Not surprisingly, the nuclear and aviation industries figure strongly in public dread risk perceptions.
In the literature, this is characterised by "dread risk" (low control and significant consequences) versus "continuing risk" (the normal risks that we tolerate and manage on a routine basis).
Not surprisingly, the nuclear and aviation industries figure strongly in public dread risk perceptions.
Seriously, are you trying to say someone would commence the takeoff without checking the annunciator panel or ignore an annunciator?
I watched a program last night where there were 2 separate accidents in the US involving DC9s/MD80 where pilots routinely pulled a circuit breaker which disabled the takeoff configuration warning system to remove nuisance warnings because they were taxiing on one engine with takeoff range thrust. When they missed the pretakeoff check to ensure they had takeoff flap configuration... guess what.... there was no warning...... in excess of 100 pax lost their lives. Gobsmacking!
I watched a program last night where there were 2 separate accidents in the US involving DC9s/MD80 where pilots routinely pulled a circuit breaker which disabled the takeoff configuration warning system to remove nuisance warnings because they were taxiing on one engine with takeoff range thrust. When they missed the pretakeoff check to ensure they had takeoff flap configuration... guess what.... there was no warning...... in excess of 100 pax lost their lives. Gobsmacking!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm having trouble blaming DFO being where it is because there have been buildings in that area for the better part of 60 years. And if it missed the DFO its next stop was probably a concrete wall or the bank on the Tulla as a best result. Worse would have been the freeway itself at peak hour.
1960 ladies and gents. You can see the area where DFO is has buildings already
1967 - 68. Tulla under construction.
A Decade of Aerial Photos | Essendon Airport
A clearer photo of what was there in some of the photos in that gallery.
DFO is just a development of an area that already had buildings.
And if you go off 35 and have a failure that sends you right at about the same angle, welcome to fuel tanks. That's not going to be any better result.
Unfortunately whatever went wrong was probably not going to end well. Whether DFO was there or not.
And at other airports in Aus there is every chance of that sort of accident hitting a terminal building or some other aviation related building. This one hit a DFO that was put in a spot that was previously developed.
Its lovely that you want airports to exist in vast open expanses, but that clearly isn't really possible.
1960 ladies and gents. You can see the area where DFO is has buildings already
1967 - 68. Tulla under construction.
A Decade of Aerial Photos | Essendon Airport
A clearer photo of what was there in some of the photos in that gallery.
DFO is just a development of an area that already had buildings.
And if you go off 35 and have a failure that sends you right at about the same angle, welcome to fuel tanks. That's not going to be any better result.
Unfortunately whatever went wrong was probably not going to end well. Whether DFO was there or not.
And at other airports in Aus there is every chance of that sort of accident hitting a terminal building or some other aviation related building. This one hit a DFO that was put in a spot that was previously developed.
Its lovely that you want airports to exist in vast open expanses, but that clearly isn't really possible.
The picture at post 362 shows that there were some buildings in that area before the DFO (thus correcting my incorrect belief that the area had been vacant prior to the DFO).
If the particular shop in the DFO had been a 'Babies R Us' full of young couples and babies, I reckon the DFO would not last long.
The worst place for the worst thing to go wrong is near or just after take off. The most safety-useful open space is therefore near the runway. Why that space within the boundaries of an aerodrome is allowed to be taken up by buildings that have no function in the operation of the aerodrome, and worse, by buildings and car parks that can be full of people who don't have anything to do with the operation of the aerodrome, needs to be thought about more deeply.
If the particular shop in the DFO had been a 'Babies R Us' full of young couples and babies, I reckon the DFO would not last long.
The worst place for the worst thing to go wrong is near or just after take off. The most safety-useful open space is therefore near the runway. Why that space within the boundaries of an aerodrome is allowed to be taken up by buildings that have no function in the operation of the aerodrome, and worse, by buildings and car parks that can be full of people who don't have anything to do with the operation of the aerodrome, needs to be thought about more deeply.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lurker, I think I have to agree with you there.
Whilst it is vaguely possible that if there was green grass rather than a DFO in that location, the pilot could have used the extra height to continue a left turn and flare and land safely on the grass rather than the freeway, I don't think we can use the development of the DFO as a contributing factor to this accident.
As you say, if the building was an airport terminal or aircraft hangars, I don't think we would be having this discussion.
With regards to airport "safety", while it would be lovely to have 10,0000 hectares of fields around every airport, that is never going to be economically feasible. Twin engine aircraft are certified to be able to climb away within a splay in the event of an engine failure, and that is generally considered an acceptable level of safety.
The reason this particular aircraft didn't is yet to be determined.
With regards to the previous suggestion by another poster that developers should be responsible for the costs of go-arounds or diversions due to mechanical turbulence caused by non-aviation buildings on airport land, I would have to say "toughen up". There are far bigger risks to aviation than this. I would like to see any incident statistics based on this phenomenum.
Whilst it is vaguely possible that if there was green grass rather than a DFO in that location, the pilot could have used the extra height to continue a left turn and flare and land safely on the grass rather than the freeway, I don't think we can use the development of the DFO as a contributing factor to this accident.
As you say, if the building was an airport terminal or aircraft hangars, I don't think we would be having this discussion.
With regards to airport "safety", while it would be lovely to have 10,0000 hectares of fields around every airport, that is never going to be economically feasible. Twin engine aircraft are certified to be able to climb away within a splay in the event of an engine failure, and that is generally considered an acceptable level of safety.
The reason this particular aircraft didn't is yet to be determined.
With regards to the previous suggestion by another poster that developers should be responsible for the costs of go-arounds or diversions due to mechanical turbulence caused by non-aviation buildings on airport land, I would have to say "toughen up". There are far bigger risks to aviation than this. I would like to see any incident statistics based on this phenomenum.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do aviation accidents attract the lamentations and attention because of their rarity? Calls to close the airport because of the risk comes to mind, whereas a B Double or car driving into someone's bedroom is just another all too common event we accept.
Road deaths in Australia over the last 5 years average around 1200 per year (source).
Commercial aviation deaths in Australia over the last 10 years average around 3.6 per year (source).
We just exceeded our average with one prang, and we don't yet know why it happened.
Obviously, the ideal goal for both road and air would be zero, but we don't live in an ideal world.
We spend billions on road safety, and yet we lose so many souls. Road transport tends to be regarded as a "right", but air transport a "privilege". If we trained and licensed road drivers in the same way we train and licence pilots, and if we subjected cars to the same level of roadworthiness that we subject aircraft, and if we build roads with the same levels of safety margins that we build airports, maybe we could significantly reduce the road toll.
But because we as a society regard road transport as a civilian "right", the economic and societal cost would be unacceptable. So we put up with the road toll.
Aviation is different. It is a privilege, and along with the "horror factor" mentioned above, it is expected to be perfect. Zero accidents. That's why a normal go-around by a commercial airliner is reported in the news as "seconds from disaster", when we all know that every car on a road is constantly "seconds from disaster", and an airliner actually never is.
While your solution might be well suited for overruns it is most assuredly not suitable for undershoots.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Down Under
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Derfred you sound like a simpleton 
Additional Fixed Wing emergencies that MAY require additional space at recovery airport (departure/destination/alternate or diversion airport):
Additional Fixed Wing emergencies that MAY require additional space at recovery airport (departure/destination/alternate or diversion airport):
- Flapless approaches – requires additional runway/clearway due high approach speed
- Hydraulics failures – may require additional landing area (lateral/longitudinal) – extra runway width/length likely to be required
- Electrical failures – may adversely affect flight controls
- Flight control malfunctions (stuck controls, control surface damage due impact with UAV, birds, another aircraft etc.)
- Engine failures (multiple engine failure/stall/surge)
- Engine fires / Aircraft Fires
- Bird strikes – resulting in severe engine damage (usually multiple)
- Landing gear malfunctions
- Over-speeding Propellers
- Tail rotor failures – may require landing at speed (run on landing)
- High rotor RPM / Low Rotor RPM
- Gear Box Failures (Main Rotor and/or Tail Rotor)
- Flight control malfunctions (cyclic, collective, tail-rotor and/or combination) – may require landing at speed (run on landing)
- Engine failures – if near / above field – may require immediate auto-rotation and landing in any open space immediately below flight path
- Engine Fires – as above
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Down Under
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Carmody was previously a Deputy Secretary in the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (DIRD). In that role he was responsible for the the Aviation and Airports Division.
He is now acting CEO CASA. The acting Executive Director (Aviation and Airports) Ms Pip Spence, was previously the General Manager Aviation and Airports. They should both know this space inside out!
Given Senator Fawcett (South Australia) and others have been agitating for Commonwealth planning guidance regarding Public Safety Areas both 'on-airport' and for land 'off-airport' immediately adjacent to airports for sometime, WHY has nothing been done yet?
As far as I understand the NASAG last met in 2012. Hello - it is now 2017!
NASF Guideline B is inadequate and an additional Guideline regarding the protection of Public Safety Areas is still not complete? Why has it taken nearly 5 years to address these deficiencies?
Last edited by Datum; 27th Feb 2017 at 20:02.